Tenant Purchase Scheme 1,855 dwellings were purchased under the Tenant Purchase Scheme in 2006; 4,081 applications to purchase were made and 3,030 sales were approved
Im not saying they shouldn't, as long the net result is that a LL can offer an alternative market to the tenant offering competitive prices. They dont.
Instead it is quite often more expensive to rent than it is to own a property.
A €250,000 mortgage over 30yrs costs circa €1,000 to repay.
A property valued at €250,000 in D6 will cost nearly twice that to rent.
All over the country, in general, the rental prices exceed the cost of a mortgage on the property. This is because of the way the sector is structured - basically LL's take out 25-30yr mortgage and charge rental that covers that mortgage plus profit plus realising ALL capital appreciation.
The tenant(s) basically pay for the house for the LL to capitalize on.
There is nothing free-market, entrepreneurial about exploiting the need of people to have a roof over their heads in order to capitalize 100% on the sale of the property.
It is an unsustainable ponzi type scheme.
I have already outlined one proposal to help resolve the issue. Another proposal would be to award the tenant an incremental % ownership of the property for each payment.
If the property has 360 monthly repayments and the tenant pays all, and the rent is equal to the mortgage repayments, then when mortgage is paid in full, tenant is 50% co-owner of property.
So any re-sale, the tenant gets something back.
If LL wants to keep majority stakehold, then reduce the rents.
It was the usual guff...a freelance “comedy” writer giving out about how difficult it is to find accommodation...maybe get a real job and see how that goes?
Because people with 'real' jobs don't have issues with finding accommodation?
With respect Gekko, housing in not 'more relevant' to one over another.
Everyone needs housing, regardless of what they do.
Even if it is effectively an artificial trade - like pensions industry.
Just to clear something's up.
I am not anti- LL. They do serve a purpose in providing accommodation to those who cannot afford their own home and to those who is does not suit to buy.
I also bear no animosity to the thousands of LL's who simply go about their business in the system that they find themselves in.
I hope that much is clear.
I do however detest landlords who prey on the poor and vulnerable and exploit their need for shelter by extracting extortionate rents in return for squalid accommodation.
The example of the 3 storey house sub-divided into 11apts is a case in point.
I do resent LL's whose attitude seems to be to raise rents for the sake of it, in the knowledge that the State will simply pay up.
This resentment or detestment of some LL's is no different to my resentment etc of employers who wont afford basic entitlements to employees like holiday pay, or mechanics who re-clock a car for resale, or any other trade or profession that exploits others for profit through fraudulent and/or sub-standard means.
Albeit it is more profound when dealing with social necessities such as housing, food, healthcare etc
As for LL's profiting from their investments I have no issue. Clearly anyone who has being paying attention will have noticed that I have proposed a scheme (whether it would actually work or not is another thing) where LL's, or effectively property managers as I called them, could make a profit from providing accommodation.
So I dont take issue with LL's simply going about their business in this system. It is the system itself as it is engineered or developed that I take issue with. A system which does not offer any real competitive alternative, in accommodation between rent and ownership. For far too many people, particularly working people, it is a system that offers unattainable mortgages or unsustainable rent.
Something radical has to happen. Hopefully it will be peaceful and through policy.
Couldn't agree more, it been a shambles.
I dont watch Late Late Show often but it was recommended to me today to catch Philly McMahon, Stefanie Pressiner and John Connors.
They talk about housing, some of the points made in the program reflecting views in this topic.
With respect you are anti landlord
You want landlords/property managers to generate a profit you deem acceptable.
That is not how business works.
The market determines what an acceptable profit is, what you are proposing is that which the State should provide ie non profit making just covering costs.
You seem to forget being a landlord is a business pure and simple.
You only have to look at the Irish Independent over the weekend to see how dysfunctional our property sector is. It took a landlord 18 months to get a non paying tenant out of their property while losing rental income and incurring costs of €25k in total (which I understand excludes legal costs although I can be corrected on the legal costs).
The title of this thread is why are landlords leaving the market because of rent controls then these are part of the reason.
Landlords need to be able to "buffer themselves" from this type of situation and we are not allowed increase rent to provide this buffer.
For the majority of landlords who hold a single property an experience like this would spell financial ruin.
The State is never going to do this no matter how much you want it. Unless a political party in power actually agrees to evict people for non payment of rent/mortgage (be they private or council tenants).
They like a lot (not all) of their counterparts want not realizing you don't get everything you want in life. It actually reminded me of a spoiled child.
We all wanted things growing up that we could not have, it was disappointing but that is part and parcel of life.
We have to learn to be content with what we have.
If you want something you work for it plain and simple, you may not get it even if you do work for it, that's life.
LL leave and enter all the time. The stats suggest loads left and since then you have a net trickle increase entering the market each year.
You would assume most leaving would smaller LL. While there will be more REIT entering than previously.
It seems from lots stories we've seen in the media REITs will drive the rent far more aggressively and upmarket than smaller LL.
The "competitive price" for REIT means a whole different thing.
You seem to think LLs should be able to charge "market rates" without interference?
Desiring security of tenure is acting like a spoiled child? You cannot be serious. Wanting a place to call home and not having to worry unduly about being able to pay rent or mortgage is a perfectly legitimate aspiration for everyone.
Equating that with a spoiled child is delusional.
So homeless people should just be content with their lot?
Working families should just accept that they will never have a place of their own?
Educated and skilled workers should just accept that their education and skills was never really to benefit them, but to enable them to pay high rents?
This is bizarre thinking, devoid of any realism.
So are rent price caps. Part of life. Maximum market values, you may not get them but keep working at it - thats life.
I have spelled out that LL's do provide a necessary function. I have distinguished between good and bad landlords.
No I do not, either you are incapable of understanding what I posted or you are deliberately trolling.
I want LL's/PM to generate profits that they themselves deem acceptable. In a competitive market.
That is how business works.
No I am not. I clearly proposed that the State outsource the management of public housing in RPZ's to the private sector.
If there is a profit to be made, the market will determine the most competitive price.
It is a business yes. The business of providing housing. A essential element of any functioning society.
Im not disputing that housing sector is dysfunctional. It has been for 15yrs+. The State has abdicated its role in providing housing for the population and effectively allowed a free reign to the private sector.
The consequences of such are now apparent - rents at all time highs and still increasing (despite the caps)
- house prices increasing
-homelessness increasing
- waiting lists for housing increasing
and I dont doubt that even greater portions of society are looking over their shoulders feeling the pressure of increasing debt.
And to date, the only concrete figures produced suggest that landlords are entering the sector, not leaving.
A tenant also needs to be able to "buffer themselves" from the prospect of increasing rents, notices of eviction.
For a lot of tenants, who are one or two pay cheques away from more debt and borrowings, increasing rents to meet "market value" is financial ruin, if not, homelessness.
Your 'solutions' to the issues surrounding non-payment of rent are old hat 19th century.
Eviction, and you pine for the days where custodial sentences would be more frequent.
Evict and lock them up - recipe for violent revolt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?